Queensland’s casino regulator and its actions should be scrutinised by the state’s inquiry into the Star Entertainment Group, industry insiders say, as the commission prepares to release its final report. 

Star Entertainment executives have been giving sworn evidence to a commission of inquiry into the operation of its existing casino licences in Brisbane and the Gold Coast.

Star admitted it should not have opened its doors to highly suspicious cashed-up gamblers banned from casinos in other states or allowed tens of millions of dollars disguised as expenses to be gambled using a Chinese bank card.

The inquiry also heard evidence that Star’s anti-money laundering processes were seriously deficient. 

Last week 7.30 revealed allegations of links between Star’s partner in its new Brisbane development, Chow Tai Fook, and organised crime.

The Queensland government is now investigating those allegations. 

But the body responsible for overseeing casinos in Queensland, the Office of Gaming and Liquor Regulation, has not been a part of these hearings and its staff have not been required to give evidence about what actions they took.

“The commissioner doesn’t have the power to call for evidence,” said Tim Nicholls, Queensland’s shadow attorney-general.

“The government must act to broaden the terms of the scope of the inquiry that’s currently underway.”

Casino regulation consultant David Green questioned why the inquiry only heard a few days of evidence, saying “the duration of the inquiry suggests it was never intended to be a far-reaching deep-dive”.

“You really have to get the whole regulatory environment examined to say, ‘Well, why have these risks materialised in an environment which claims to have controlled them?'”

That sentiment was echoed by Ben Lee, a casino consultant in Macau who has worked in the Australian industry.

“I think it’s a control exercise, to basically go through the motions of conducting an inquiry without really conducting an inquiry,” he said.

“If the Queensland government really was interested in cleaning up whatever mess there may be, they should really open up the scope.”

Mr Lee believes not putting the regulator’s actions under detailed scrutiny could mean potential flaws in the system go unaddressed. 

“We don’t know how personal, or to use another word, unprofessional, the relationship has become between the regulator and Star,” he said.

“We just don’t know.

“There are just so many questions that could be asked and one question could lead you to another, the answer could lead you yet to another area and you know, that is what should happen in Queensland.”

The calls add further pressure on the Palaszczuk government to broaden the inquiry after the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation confirmed it was investigating fresh allegations made about the conduct of casinos in Townsville and Cairns. 

The allegations, which involve a different casino operator, were first reported by the Channel 9 program 60 Minutes. 

However, Queensland Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman has rejected the calls to broaden the inquiry. 

In a statement to 7.30 she defended the actions already underway as sufficient.

“The conduct of Star in Queensland and New South Wales is of great concern and raises questions around ongoing suitability to hold licences for and operate casinos,” she said.

“That’s why suitability investigations are being undertaken and the independent external review is being conducted, including to provide advice regarding the suitability investigation.”

‘Our policies and procedures were not strong enough’

Star was asked about gifts it provided to a suspicious high roller, including tickets to a concert by the Village People to encourage him to try his luck on the Gold Coast. 

The gambler, who had been banned from NSW casinos by the state’s police commissioner, was also given private jet flights, a $50,000 Rolex watch and even a special birthday cake.

Star Entertainment’s interim CEO Geoff Hogg told the inquiry that his company had relied on what it now concedes is incorrect legal advice that it could not immediately exclude patrons banned from interstate casinos. 

“I think in hindsight we clearly should have been asked more questions from that point,” he said.

“I do accept that our policies and procedures were not strong enough and those people should have been excluded earlier.”

Star’s general manager of anti-money launder/counter-terrorism financing compliance, Howard Steiner, who only began working at the company in early 2020, acknowledged failures of the compliance strategy and a “culture of the past that does not exist today”.

“I think we’ve addressed that cultural change within the Star and our culture like that are a vestige of the past,” he said.

Also under scrutiny was evidence that Star mislabelled cash withdrawals on bank cards used by Chinese high rollers. The inquiry was told that between 2017 and 2020 more than $55 million was transferred to Star’s Queensland casinos by these sham transactions. 

John Chevis, an anti-money-laundering consultant, says the false bank card descriptions raise serious questions about what the regulator was up to.

“These money laundering risks are extreme. They don’t come any higher,” Mr Chevis said.

“I think a lot of it does come back to this perception amongst entities in Australia that there hasn’t been much risk of being caught.”

“Everyone comes out looking bad,” Andrew Scott said. “The operator comes out looking bad and so does the regulator.

“The regulators should have been on top of their operators, and I think that’s an Australian-wide problem.”

While Star conceded its anti-money laundering processes were “seriously deficient”, the company argued it had made significant strides to address those deficiencies and they were now effective. 

Ms Fentiman said the present inquiry could still make recommendations about the role of the regulator in its final report due at the end of the next month. 

“The review will consider and make recommendations regarding enhancements to the regulation of casinos in Queensland,” she said.

“This is in addition to legislative changes that are already before parliament.”

She did not answer questions about why the regulator’s role had not been further scrutinised, including why senior figures were not required to give evidence.

“The OLGR has been providing assistance to the review as appropriate, including through the provision of material associated with its own investigations of matters being considered by the review,” she said.

“No allegations of improper conduct have been levelled at OLGR personnel. Any allegation of misconduct should be referred to the Crime and Corruption Commission.”